coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence).
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Sesto Fiorentino, which he had let to G.C. and G.P.
6.  In a registered letter of 29 November 1990, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenants on 17 April 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 23 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
9.  On 29 April 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.
10.  On 14 May 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
11.  On 2 June 1993, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 July 1993.
12.  Between 15 July 1993 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 27 June 1999.
14.  On that date, the tenants asked the Florence Magistrate for a new suspension. On 11 July 2000, the Florence Magistrate decided to fix a new date for the enforcement proceedings, namely 25 January 2001.
15.  On 31 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat because the tenants spontaneously vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb.
9.  From 1 August 1992 until 31 August 1995 the Croatian army used the applicant's cottage in Gospić, Croatia, for military purposes. After the members of the army had left, the applicant found that the house had been wrecked and his possessions removed.
10.  On 20 March 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages against the Republic of Croatia with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud).
11.  At the preliminary hearing on 18 November 1997 the applicant lodged an application to be exempted from payment of the court fees. The court heard the applicant, who stated that he lived with his daughter, son-in-law and grandchild in a flat in Zagreb which he owned. He also stated that he owned a small cottage and that his pension amounted to 1,624 kunas (HRK) per month. The court rejected the applicant's application for exemption from payment of the court fees and ordered him to pay the amount of HRK 6,780 within sixty days.
12.  On 21 November 1997 the applicant appealed against the above decision to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud). He submitted a written copy of the appeal to the Zagreb Municipal Court. In the appeal he stated that his pension was his only income and that he had to support his daughter. Furthermore, his possessions were of no great value since his cottage had been wrecked. By paying the fees imposed, he would have jeopardised his own means of subsistence and those of the persons whom he supported.
13.  However, the Zagreb Municipal Court did not forward the appeal to the Zagreb County Court, as the appellate court, because there was no written court decision on the applicant's application to be exempted from the court fees, which was a prerequisite for an appeal. On 31 December 1998 the statutory limitation period for non-payment of court fees expired and the issue thus became irrelevant.
14.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced a change to the Civil Obligations Act to the effect that all proceedings concerning claims in respect of damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the Croatian army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
15.  On 28 November 2000 the proceedings were stayed.
16.  In the meantime, on 24 August 2000, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the above legislation. The Constitutional Court has not yet adopted any decision on that complaint.
17.  The applicant also filed a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings.
18.  On 18 December 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the latter complaint, finding that the applicant's right to have his civil claim decided within a reasonable time had not been violated as the courts had not been in a position to proceed with his case on account of the changes in legislation.
19.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation concerning liability for damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the Croatian army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in Croatia.
4.  The applicants were both born in 1936 and live in La Spezia.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to G. and M. D.
6.  In a registered letter of 3 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenants that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenants on 25 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 19 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 2 November 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
9.  On 5 April 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.
10.  On 29 June 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
11.  On 21 July 1989, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 September 1989.
12.  Between 11 September 1989 and 14 December 1998, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 17 June 1999, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1927 and 1929 and live in Rome.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to L.S.
6.  In a registered letter of 19 February 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 December 1990, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 9 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
9.  On 12 February 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 16 April 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 May 1993.
11.  Between 6 May 1993 and 7 December 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 6 June 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Rome.
7.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to F.M. and G.C.
8.  In a registered letter of 8 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  The tenants told the applicant that they would not leave the premises.
10.  In a writ served on the tenants on 18 May 1985, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 29 June 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 June 1986.
12.  On 26 May 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
13.  On 9 July 1986, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 July 1986.
14.  Between 31 July 1986 and 19 May 2000, the bailiff made seventy-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 14 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.
5.  In June 1995, on his way to work, the applicant bought a bottle of sparkling mineral water. While he was opening it, the bottle exploded and its metal cap hit the applicant’s left eye. The accident, despite the subsequent surgeries and medical treatment, resulted in the applicant’s loss of vision in his left eye. He was declared an invalid and was granted a disability pension by the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych).
6.  In August 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for compensation and pension against the producer of the mineral water. He submitted medical certificates issued by the Częstochowa and Katowice Hospitals which treated his injury.
7.  On 23 October 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Częstochowie) exempted the applicant from the court fees.
8.  On 15 November and 15 December 1997 the trial court held hearings.
9.  In December 1997 the “S” assurance company joined the proceedings as an intervener.
10.  In 1998 the trial court held four hearings at which it heard witnesses.
11.  On 8 December 1998 the court, sitting in camera, ordered a medical expert opinion.
12.  On 18 May 1999 the court received the opinion.
13.  On 25 May 1999 the court, sitting in camera, ordered the Social Security Board to provide a copy of the applicant’s file.
14.  Between 24 November 1998 and 7 September 1999 no hearings were held.
15.  At the subsequent hearings held on 8 September 1999, 12 January and 14 June 2000 the court heard witnesses and ordered the preparation of new expert opinions.
16.  On 13 December 2000 the trial court held a hearing at which it asked for another expert medical opinion to be prepared.
17.  On 10 April 2001 the court received the expert opinion. The intervener challenged it.
18.  At the hearing held on 20 June 2001 the court requested an expert opinion concerning the applicant’s pension.
19.  The expert submitted the opinion on 31 January 2002. Again, the intervener challenged the opinion.
20.  The next hearing, which was held on 20 March 2002, was adjourned sine die. The court ordered another expert opinion.
21.  On 24 May 2002 the opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the intervener challenged it.
22.  On 27 September 2002 the trial court held a hearing.
23.  On 30 September 2002 the Częstochowa Regional Court gave judgment. The defendant was found liable for the damage sustained by the applicant. The court awarded the applicant PLN 85,000 in compensation but dismissed his claim for pension.
24.  Both parties appealed against this judgment.
25.  On 4 April 2003 the applicant was exempted from the court-fees in the appeal procedure. The proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Lubań, Poland.
5.  The applicant was involved in administrative proceedings concerning the amount of the veteran benefit he had been receiving since 1974. On 12 September 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court gave a judgment in his case. The court, inter alia, ordered the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons (Urząd do Spraw Kombatantów i Osób Represjonowanych) to pay the applicant a sum of PLN 10 as reimbursement of the court fees. In May 1997 the applicant received from the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons only a half of the awarded sum (PLN 5).
6.  In April 1997 the applicant lodged with the Lubań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Lubaniu) a civil action against the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons. He claimed compensation and payment of, inter alia, the remaining sum of PLN 5.
7.  On 7 May 1997 the Lubań District Court transmitted the case to the Warsaw District Court.
8.  The Warsaw District Court held one hearing and on 30 November 1998 it gave a default judgment (wyrok zaoczny) against the defendant ordering it to pay PLN 50 in compensation and PLN 30 as a reimbursement of the court fees. The court ordered that the judgment should be immediately enforceable.
9.  On 30 March 1999 the defendant lodged an objection against this decision.
10.  On 18 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court suspended the enforcement order in respect of the judgment of 30 November 1998.
11.  The applicant asked the court to order again that the judgment of 30 November 1998 be immediately enforceable. On 29 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court dismissed his request. The applicant appealed against this decision and was ordered to pay the court-fees. On 22 August 2000 his appeal was rejected due to the applicant's failure to pay the court fees. In the appeal procedure against this decision he was also ordered to pay the court‑fees. Finally, the applicant paid the court-fees and on 16 December 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined his appeal against the decision of 29 October 1999 and dismissed it.
12.  On 23 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court, sitting in camera, decided that the applicant would be heard by the Lubań District Court. It appears that this court failed to hear the applicant and on 25 April 2002 the trial court repeated its request.
13.  On 28 June 2002 the Lubań District Court heard the applicant.
14.  The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Stary Lubliniec, Poland.
7.  On 10 October 1994 the applicant filed an application for delimitation of plots of land with the Lubaczów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
8.  On 9 November 1994 the court held the first hearing. Further hearings were held on 29 November, 20 December 1994, 27 November 1995 and 25 April 1996.
9.  On 5 June 1996 the court held an inspection of the site. From 6 March 1997 to 22 June 1999 the court held nine hearings.
10.  During the first-instance proceedings the court heard evidence from three witnesses and obtained reports from two experts.
11.  On 5 November 1999 the Lubaczów District Court held a hearing and delivered judgment.
12.  On 13 December 1999 the applicant appealed. The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 17 February 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Rome.
5.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.D'A.P.
6.  In a registered letter of 29 July 1982, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 October 1985, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 12 December 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.
9.  On 31 October 1986 and 3 November 1986 the applicant served notices on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
10.  On 25 November 1986 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 January 1987.
11.  Between 15 January 1987 and 12 November 1992 the bailiff made forty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 15 October 1987, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior and the prefect in order to obtain reimbursement of the damages resulted from the refusal or delay to grant her police assistance. The proceedings was declared inadmissible.
13.  In May 1989, Mr S.S. reiterated his proposition made in 1987, to rent the flat at a price of 1,100,000 Italian lire (ITL) [568.10 euros (EUR)] for the first year and ITL 1,200,000 [EUR 619.75] for the second year.
14.  On 6 April 1994 the applicant served another notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
15.  On 11 May 1994 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 June 1994.
16.  Between 3 June 1994 and 23 October 1998 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 17 August 1998, the tenant died.
18.  On 3 November 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
7.  The applicant, born in 1939, is currently detained in HM Prison Full Sutton.
8.  In 1964, the applicant was convicted of the murder of a woman whom he had violently assaulted. He was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. In May 1980 (or November 1979, according to the applicant's submissions), he was released on life licence after a positive recommendation from the Parole Board.
9.  In June 1981, the applicant killed a 75 year old woman. His plea of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility was accepted by the court. In January 1982 a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by the judge having regard to the extreme danger to the public posed by the applicant. At the same time, the court revoked his life licence concerning his earlier sentence of mandatory life imprisonment.
10.  In December 1985, the applicant was transferred to the hospital wing of Parkhurst prison. Since then, he has been transferred into ordinary prison locations as a “Category A” (high security) prisoner.
11.  The applicant learned that his “tariff” period fixed by the trial judge on the manslaughter offence expired in June 1991. He was informed by a Home Office Memorandum of 5 June 1992 that his continued detention was based on the risk he represented.
12.  According to the applicant's submissions, his only Parole Board review took place in 1999, when, without holding an oral hearing, the Board declined to recommend release. According to the Government's submissions, the Parole Board considered the applicant's case in September 1994 and January 1997. In 1994, it concluded that his behaviour was aggressive and intimidatory and that he represented a high risk to the public. On 10 January 1997, it concluded that he remained far too great a risk to warrant transfer to open conditions. Of the reports before the Parole Board, none recommended early release or early transfer to open conditions.
4.  The applicant was born in 1911 and lives in Chieri.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to C.V.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 5 May 1986, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 4 June 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 June 1987.
8.  On 16 January 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
9.  On 25 February 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 March 1991.
10.  On 27 March 1991, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 11 May 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 1 June 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 July 1992.
13.  Between 8 July 1992 and 16 October 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
15.  On 24 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Florence.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to R.C.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 May 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1992 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 11 June 1990, which was made enforceable on 26 June 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 October 1993.
8.  In the meanwhile, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 31 October 1994.
9.  On 28 June 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 19 July 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 September 1995.
11.  Between 18 September 1995 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 2 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Rome.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to O.S.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 October 1992, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 3 March 1993, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 March 1994.
8.  On 9 April 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
9.  On 26 April 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1994.
10.  Between 24 May 1994 and 26 November 1999, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 26 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.